Cashion-Sterpa, Inc. dba Southern California Yamaha v. Yamaha Motor Corporation USA; Yamaha Motor Manufacturing Corporation of America, Inc., et al.
Published: May 24, 1997 | Result Date: Apr. 25, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: EC016652 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Burbank
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Debra K. Bothun
(technical)
Defendant
George E. Miller
(technical)
Facts
In July 1993, plaintiff Cashion-Sterpa Inc., dba Southern California Yamaha, became an approved, non-exclusive golf car dealership for defendant Yamaha Motor Corporation in Orange County pursuant to a written dealership agreement. In November 1994, Yamaha gave Cashion-Sterpa notice of the termination of the dealer agreement and eventually replaced it with a new dealer. Yamaha claimed it terminated the dealership agreement because the plaintiff breached the agreement in various ways, including failing to vigorously promote Yamaha golf cars. The plaintiff brought this action against Yamaha Motor Corporation USA and related companies based on alleged violations of the California Franchise Relations Act, California Franchise Investment Law, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud and fraudulent concealment theories of recovery. Defendant Yamaha Motor Corporation USA filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff and its principals for breach of contract for unpaid parts purchased by the plaintiff's dealership.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff made a C.C.P. º998 settlement demand for $___________. The defendants made a C.C.P. º998 offer of compromise for $____________ .
Damages
The plaintiff claimed a minimum of $3.1 million in damages in future lost profits and also sought an unspecified amount of punitive damages based on the fraud claims.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and three months after the case was filed. Two settlement conferences were held, but they did not resolve the matter. Following an Evidence Code º402 hearing prior to trial, the court granted Yamaha's motion for nonsuit as to the plaintiff's franchise law claims. Following the completion of the plaintiff's case in chief, the court granted Yamaha's action motion for nonsuit as to the plaintiff's cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of its causes of action for unfair competition and unjust enrichment before the case was submitted to the jury. POST TRIAL MOTIONS: The plaintiff's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are pending.
Deliberation
3 days
Poll
12-0
Length
13 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390